1887—88] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 415 



work, one of permanent value, which will remove many of the 

 difficulties which now stand in the way of a knowledge of Hieracia. 

 I trust that you will receive the cordial support of British botanists 

 especially, but also of all lovers of these beautiful plants. — Believe 

 me to be, very truly yours, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



5, Brooksidb, Cambkidge, Nov. 5, 1887. 



Dear Mr. Hanbury, — Will the enclosed letter be of any use to you? 

 I am sorry that it has not been written sooner ; but something or 

 other has always prevented me. I did not find the Hieradum by 

 the Clunie, which you mentioned to me. I fear that it was too late 

 for it. Indeed I did not go to the place. I saw next to no Hieracia 

 at Braemar this year, and was too late for many of the other plants. 

 They seem to have come and gone very early and quickly. I did 

 see a few which I had not seen for many years ; such as Vaccinium 

 uliginosum, Cornus suecica, both in fruit, and also Azalea, and others 

 on Morrone. And Linnaea in one spot near Invercauld. I am not 

 surprised at your having found forms unknown in Scandinavia : 

 Backhouse did so ; and I am similarly situated with the Brambles. 

 It is quite possible that there may be changes caused by climate in 

 similar species, or the same species. But I am far from being inclined 

 to allow much of such change. There may however be aggregate 

 and segregate species. At present we have to look for the latter 

 amongst the Eubi, and it may be the same with the Hieracia. You 

 must lose money by this work, but we must endeavour to make your 

 loss as little as we can. — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



I told Lynch to write about the seeds, and hope that he did so. 



To W. H. Beeby, Esq. 



Cambkidge, Jan. 20, 1888. 



Dear Mr. Beeby, — I have only been able to-day to attend to your 

 very interesting despatch of the 7th. I see that Friderichsen and 

 Gelert (p. 123) quote divergens (Neum.) as the same as ciliattis 

 (Lindb.) Balf ourianus {A.rQBc\i.). Not "Bab." but Areschoug himself 

 (p. 60) places it as absolutely identical with Balfotorianus (BIox. and 

 Bab.). I do not possess the "Herb. rub. Scand." quoted by 

 Friderichsen and Gelert. Areschoug says that his plant is that 

 of Baker, Briggs, and Warren, but does not agree very well with 

 my description in "British Eubi," which I can fully believe on 

 looking to that description. I believe that we have more than 

 one form under our Balfourianus, but do not as yet see how to 

 distinguish them. If I gathered such a specimen as those you 

 , send me, I should call it Balfourianus. Doubtless its leaflets do not 



